Comments on: Gas Rush: New York’s Heated Hydrofracking Debatehttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/
Serving the opinion leaders of Long IslandSun, 28 Oct 2012 12:30:37 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3By: Lauriehttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-261643
Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:33:42 +0000http://www.longislandpress.com/?p=194426#comment-261643The only people who could be in favor of fracking are those who are invested in it and are obviously blinded by the dollar signs.
]]>By: Bobhttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-165191
Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:33:56 +0000http://www.longislandpress.com/?p=194426#comment-165191Frack away Upstate needs the jobs and the money they will bring.
]]>By: FELIXhttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-159901
Tue, 09 Aug 2011 03:51:33 +0000http://www.longislandpress.com/?p=194426#comment-159901Wake up people.Big business IS goverment.They are one and the same.Screw the public.They don’t have to live there.They will tell them to drink bottled water.There is a real reason for our second amendment.
]]>By: Thttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-159127
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:06:46 +0000http://www.longislandpress.com/?p=194426#comment-159127James,

Methane in water supplies is not a rare case in these areas. Many, many people can light their water on fire. In many cases, the gas companies have actually paid to have new wells and treatment equipment put in at people’s houses, but would only do so if the victims signed NDAs to not talk about it anymore.

Don’t you find it crazy that these companies are exempt from the clean water act?

I ended up on their steering committee and their webmaster, and spent 3-years accumulating information of gas drilling impacts.

I am no longer with the group because I am convinced it is NOT possible to extract gas from shale without seriously jeopardizing public health and safety, and the environment. The gas industry and their shills want everyone to be focused on the act of hydraulic fracturing, which they deny has caused any problems with surrounding private wells. This is a flat, outright lie: just GOOGLE Garfield County Water Contamination Study, or Pavillion, WY water contamination if they have any doubts, and this is just the tip…

So, while fracking is definitely a problem, possibly more important is the fact that the first vertical bore hole that penetrates the ground water / aquifer is where many problems start: by destroying the impermeability of the cap rocks that keep brine & stuff from migrating upwards from lower formations to affect ground water, this creates a conduit for methane, VOC’s and whatever else to migrate up the borehole to the groundwater/aquifer BEFORE the well is cemented. Even so, the Canadian Govt. tested 31 gas wells and found 19 of them were leaking methane, begging the question if this may be an industry “standard” (the Canadians are studying the process for the next 3-years and have instituted a moratorium until then).

The DEC has shown they are not capable of adequately regulating and overseeing this industry. The DEC needs to be split-up, because they have a severe conflict of interest that has prevented them from protecting the environment for decades. There are NO scientific studies showing fracking is safe, or that produced/frack water is not affecting ground water in areas fracked 15+ years ago. No data = no data, and no conclusions can be reached one way or the other! The gas industry has data – but they’re not sharing it…I wonder why.

]]>By: JAMEShttp://archive.longislandpress.com/2011/08/04/gas-rush-new-yorks-heated-hydrofracking-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-158557
Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:01:44 +0000http://www.longislandpress.com/?p=194426#comment-158557I think we are all in agreement that “Toxic Chemicals” should not be injected into fresh water supplies.

But a writing style that:

-relies on emotive terms, like, “toxic chemicals”, without explaining which chemicals, their uses and risks; or,
-provides accounts of “tap water on fire”, without telling us whose tap water caught on fire (and perhaps what the local fire marshal ruled),

is a writing style that is no friend to those seeking to be informed, and is too close a friend to the propagandist.